AMERICAN EQUITY: Annuities Lawsuits Still Pending in California---------------------------------------------------------------American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. is still facingseveral purported class-action lawsuits in connection withannuities that the company issued.

The company was named as a defendant in two such cases seekingclass-action status. They are:

2. "In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (complaint filed on Sept. 7, 2005) (Los Angeles Case).

The plaintiff in the SLO Case seeks to represent a nationalclass of individuals who either purchased their annuity from thecompany through a co-defendant marketing organization or whopurchased one of a defined set of particular annuities issued bythe company.

American Equity has filed its opposition to a motion to certifythe class in the SLO case, and the hearing on the motion beganon March 18, 2008, but was not completed. The hearing isscheduled to resume on Oct. 6, 2008.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving severallawsuits filed by individuals and is seeking class-action statusfor a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by thecompany. The allegations generally attach the suitability ofsales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of65.

The company is vigorously defending against both class actionstatus as well as the underlying claims which includemisrepresentation and violations of the Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act, among others.

The company reported no further development regarding thematters in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2008.

CourtHouse News did not report on further details ordevelopments regarding the case.

AUTOMAKERS: Faces Suit Over Car Price Discrepancy in US & Canada----------------------------------------------------------------A Toronto-based law firm is expected to file a class-action suitfor $2 billion dollars, open to any Canadian who purchased a newvehicle between August 2005 and August 2007, Best Syndicationreports. According to the suit, during this particular timeperiod, the Canadian dollar rapidly appreciated, but Canadiancar prices did not adjust.

The report explains that while the American economy isstruggling and a Canadian dollar is now equivalent to oneAmerican dollar, it is a different case when it comes to cardealerships. Best Syndication relates that at Canadian cardealerships, it appears the U.S. dollar is still strong, giventhe discrepancies between the cost of a new car purchased inCanada and one purchased in the U.S.

The report further says that despite the fact the two countriesare similar economically, price differentials on some cars canbe as much as $7,000 to $10,000. For example, a Turbo 2-LiterAudi A4 Quattro sells for about $32,000 in the U.S., while inCanada, one will have to shell out more than $40,000 for thesame model. Best Syndication notes that Volvo is where thepinch is really felt, exposing a 38% markup that costs Canadiansan extra $11,000.

The report says that this is not really news, as the pricedifference always existed. However, it was not obvious untilthe value of the American dollar fell, or until the Canadiandollar caught up.

Best Syndication points out that the class-action lawsuitcharges that automakers worked together illegally in aconspiracy to create rules a "no-export clause" preventingCanadians from purchasing a car in the U.S. and returning toCanada with the vehicle. They also refused to perform warrantywork on those same cars.

The suit names most large automakers, as well as the CanadianAutomobile Dealers Association and the U.S. National AutomobileDealers Association, as defendants.

The suit also says that dealers have been sucked into the melee,with some U.S. dealers receiving penalties for knowingly sellingcars headed for exportation, and Canadian dealers receivingtermination threats for non-compliance with the rules.

According to Best Syndication, this is not the first time a casesimilar to this one has arisen, but previous cases dragged onwith little resolution. However, now that the American dollarand the Canadian dollar are at parity, the lawsuit has morechances of finally bringing about the action Canadians areseeking.

The report says that in Vancouver and British Columbia, the lawfirm of Stephens and Holman can assist consumers in filing aspart of this class action lawsuit to recover damages rightfullydue under law.

BUDGET RENT: Overcharges For Rental Car Damages, Pa. Suit Says--------------------------------------------------------------Budget Rent A Car is facing a class-action complaint filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvaniaalleging it cheats customers who decline purchase of a LossDamage Waiver by grossly overcharging them for damages to rentalcars, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Peter Benson -- who hit a deer -- says Budgetassessed the damage to the car at $5,481, but charged him andhis insurance company $12,920 for it.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who,during the four years prior to the filing of the complaint,rented a car from Budget, declined the Loss Damage Waiver,damaged the car and who were affected by at least one of thefollowing practices that are the subject of the complaint:

(1) assessment of charged for administrative fees, loss of rental value and any fees or charges not authorized under the Agreement;

(2) assessment of charged based on a valuation of the rental car that exceed the retail fair market value of the car;

(3) failure to repair the car prior to sale of the rental car;

(4) use of dealer only auctions for sale of the rental car; and

(5) collection of amounts based on any of the foregoing practices.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

(a) whether Budget has sought and collected fees and charged not authorized by the Agreement or not legally due and owing;

(b) whether the defendant's conduct violated the FDCPA;

(c) whether the LDW provisions of the Agreement constitute illegal and unenforceable penalties; and

CALIFORNIA CLUBS: Dancers Say "Gentlemen's Clubs" Strip Wages-------------------------------------------------------------Dancers at three "gentlemen's clubs" have filed a class actionin Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that managers illegallyclassify them as independent contractors, instead of employees,which allows the clubs to charge them to work instead of payingwages, Karina Brown writes for CourtHouse New Service.

Named plaintiffs Demetria Leshay and Roxanne Roberts say theclubs exercise control over dancers as though they areemployees, including scheduling and requiring specific dancecostumes.

According to the complaint, calling dancers independentcontractors, in name, lets the clubs duck taxes and violatelabor laws and regulations.

The report states that the plaintiffs base their objection toindependent contractor status on a 2003 5th Circuit decision,which found that dancers were employees, where clubs "exercisedsignificant control over dancers' behavior and opportunity forprofit."

The plaintiffs claim that club decisions about dancers'schedules also dictated the amount of "house" or "club fees"that management charges the dancers each shift. Clubs chargedancers less to work morning shifts than to work evening shifts,the plaintiffs add.

The plaintiffs further allege the clubs regularly take apercentage of their tips, in violation of a 2001 CaliforniaDepartment of Industrial Relations decision specificallyprohibiting that. Also, club management requires dancers togive part of their tips to other club employees, such asbouncers, DJs, and wait staff.

CUMULUS MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Cloud Merger Suits in Georgia---------------------------------------------------------------Cumulus Media, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of two purportedclass-action lawsuits over its merger agreement with CloudAcquisition Corp. and Cloud Acquisition's subsidiary, CloudMerger Corp.

On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement andPlan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. Underthe terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be mergedwith and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as thesurviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of CloudAcquisition. The proposed acquisition of the company wasterminated in May 2008.

The two purported class-action suits related to the mergerare:

1. "Jeff Michelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al." (Case No. 2007CV137612, filed July 27, 2007), which was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other directors and the sponsor; and

2. "Paul Cowles v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al." (Case No. 2007-CV-139323, filed August 31, 2007), which was filed before the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other directors and the sponsor.

The complaints in the two Georgia lawsuits made similarallegations initially, but on June 25 and July 11, 2008,respectively, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, alleging,among other things, entirely new state law claims, includingbreach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach offiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporatewaste, unjust enrichment, rescission and accounting.

The amended complaints further allege, for the first time,misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the purchaseor sale of securities. The amended complaints seek, among otherrelief, damages on behalf of the putative class.

With respect to the two Georgia lawsuits, the defendants removedthem to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia on July 17, and later filed motions to dismiss bothcases, according to Cumulus Media's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2008.

Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM)radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout theU.S. Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC(CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters servinglarge-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007,Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sizedU.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eightmarkets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlantathat are owned by CMP. Under an local marketing agreement(LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for oneradio station in the United States in exchange for a managementor consulting fee. In summary, Cumulus owns and operates,directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336stations in 64 U.S. markets.

On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement andPlan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. Underthe terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will bemerged with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing asthe surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of CloudAcquisition. The proposed acquisition of the company wasterminated in May 2008.

The suit is entitled, "Patricia D. Merna, on behalf of herselfand all others similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al.,Case No. 3151," which was filed on Aug. 8, 2007, in the ChanceryCourt for the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against thecompany, Lew Dickey, the other directors, the sponsor, CloudAcquisition and Cloud Merger.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the terminatedtransaction was the product of an unfair process, that theconsideration to be paid to the company's stockholders pursuantto the terminated transaction was inadequate, and that thedefendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company'sstockholders.

The suit further alleges that the parties to the transactionaided and abetted the actions of the company's directors inbreaching such fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, amongother relief, an injunction preventing completion of thetransaction.

In order to resolve the case, the company reached an agreementalong with the individual defendants in that lawsuit, withoutadmitting any wrongdoing, pursuant to a memorandum ofunderstanding dated Nov. 13, 2007. The MOU extended thestatutory period in which holders of the company's common stockmay have exercised their appraisal rights and allowed forfurther disclosures in the proxy statement filed in connectionwith the terminated transaction as requested by the counsel forthe plaintiff.

Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM)radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout theU.S. Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC(CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters servinglarge-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007,Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sizedU.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eightmarkets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlantathat are owned by CMP. Under an local marketing agreement(LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for oneradio station in the United States in exchange for a managementor consulting fee. In summary, Cumulus owns and operates,directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336stations in 64 U.S. Markets.

DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Proposed Settlement Notification Begins--------------------------------------------------------------A notification program began, as ordered by the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of West Virginia, to alertpeople who have or had an oil and gas lease in West Virginiaabout a proposed class action settlement with DominionTransmission, Inc. (formerly known as CNG Transmission, Inc.),Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc. (formerly known as CNGProducing Company), Dominion Appalachian Development, LLC, ortheir predecessors.

In 2005, the Richmond-based law firm of Allen, Allen, Allen &Allen and a Charleston, West Virginia firm launched a classaction lawsuit on behalf of two consumers over a mistake by aDominion Transmission clerk that federal officials say cost thenatural gas market $200 million to $1 billion (Class ActionReporter, June 20, 2005).

The suit, which was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court inWest Virginia, stemmed from a weekly report by DominionTransmission, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc., filed inNovember with the Energy Information Administration. Energytraders use the agency's report to gauge natural gasinventories.

According to the suit, the clerk inadvertently used figures fromthe wrong week for the report, which led to an estimate by thefederal agency that two to three times as much gas had beenwithdrawn from storage as market observers expected. The erroreventually resulted in the short-term price of natural gasspiking up by as much as 17% in a single day. Afterdiscovering the error, the suit states that Dominion and theagency corrected it in its next weekly report, which led tomarket prices falling back.

Generally, the lawsuit includes anyone who has or had an oil andgas lease on lands lying in West Virginia, and who have or hadoil, gas or other hydrocarbon production under that lease andhave received or are due royalty payments after June 22, 1996,from Dominion.

Notices informing people about their legal rights will bemailed, leading up to a hearing on January 21, 2009, when theCourt will consider whether to approve the settlement.

The settlement will make payments to people who have or had aOne-Eighth or Flat-Rate lease.

The suit is "Jacquet, et al. v. Dominion Transmission, Inc., etal., Case Number: 2:2005cv00548," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge John T.Copenhaver Jr., presiding.

FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Maine Suit Over Misrepresented Charges------------------------------------------------------------First American Title Insurance is facing a class-actioncomplaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District ofMaine alleging it overcharges homeowners and misrepresentscharges, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, First American -- the nation'slargest title insurer -- has for years routinely overchargedMaine homeowners who refinance their home mortgages, by chargingthem premiums for title insurance far in excess of FirstAmerican's statutorily required Maine rates.

Refinancing borrowers are entitled to pay substantially reducedpremiums for title insurance obtained from First American. As amatter of practice, however, First American does not disclose tothese homeowners that they are entitled to hundreds ofdollars in savings when they purchase title insurance, andmisrepresents to them that the inflated rates they are beingcharged are the correct rates.

(a) certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives and the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

(b) declaring that the plaintiffs and the class qualified for refinance rates in connection with their refinance transactions;

(c) declaring that First American was obligated to give discounted refinance rates to the plaintiffs and the class, and to inform the plaintiffs and the class that they qualified for such discounted rates;

(d) declaring that First American violated Maine law by charging rates in excess of those permitted by law and by failing to inform the plaintiffs and the class that they qualified for reduced rates;

(e) issuing a permanent injunction requiring First American to identify and notify in writing all residential consumers who paid premiums for the purchase of title insurance from it of the conditions upon which they may qualify for a discounted refinance rate;

(f) ordering First American to refund the illegal amounts charged to the plaintiffs and the class;

(g) awarding compensatory damages on behalf of the plaintiffs and the class in an amount to be proven at trial;

(h) awarding pre-judgment interest;

(i) award attorneys fees and costs; and

(j) for such other and further relief as allowed by law and as is equitable under the circumstances.

The suit is "Campbell, et al. v. First American Title InsuranceCompany, Case Number: 2:2008cv00311," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Maine, Judge George Z. Singal,presiding, with referral to Magistrate Judge John H. Rich, III.

GULFPORT ENERGY: Wants Robotti Lawsuit in Delaware Thrown Out-------------------------------------------------------------Gulfport Energy Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purportedclass-action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery for theState of Delaware in and for Kent County, Delaware.

The lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2007, by Robotti & Company,LLC. It alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by Gulfport and itsdirectors in connection with the pricing of the 2004 rightsoffering.

By mutual agreement of the parties, Gulfport was not required torespond until notified by the plaintiff, which response wasreceived on Jan. 16, 2008.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 15, 2008, and,in early February 2008, Gulfport filed a motion to dismiss thecase and filed a brief in support of its dismissal motion onApril 29, 2008.

The company reported no further development regarding the casein its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Gulfport Energy Corp. -- http://www.gulfportenergy.com/-- is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and productioncompany with properties located along the Louisiana Gulf Coast.The Company's operations are concentrated in two fields: WestCote Blanche Bay (WCBB) and the Hackberry fields. The companyalso holds ownership interests in entities that operate inSoutheast Asia, Canada and the Williston Basin area of westernNorth Dakota and eastern Montana.

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Suit's Dismissal Still on Appeal--------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in a consolidated class-action lawsuit againstInspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are appealing to the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the dismissal of their case bythe U.S. District Court for the Middle District of NorthCarolina.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purportedshareholder class-action complaints was filed against thecompany and certain of its senior officers.

Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of apurported class of purchasers of the company's securitiesbetween June 2, 2004, and Feb. 8, 2005.

On March 27, 2006, following a consolidation of the lawsuitsinto a single civil action and the appointment of leadplaintiffs, a consolidated class action complaint asserting thesame allegations as the original ones was filed.

The consolidated complaint also asserts claims against certainparties that served as underwriters in the company's securitiesofferings during the period relevant to the complaint.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalfof a purported class of purchasers of the company's securitiesfrom May 10, 2004, to Feb. 8, 2005.

In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss theirclaims against the underwriters on the basis that they weretime-barred.

On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants asked thecourt to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails tostate a claim upon which relief can be granted and does notsatisfy the pleading requirements under applicable law.

In July 2007, the court granted Inspire's and the otherdefendants' request and dismissed the consolidated action withprejudice.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the company and theother defendants filed an opposition brief in January 2008,according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al.,Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed before the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge WilliamL. Osteen, presiding.

INTERSECTIONS INC: Settles Suit Over Credit Monitoring Service--------------------------------------------------------------Intersections, Inc., has reached a settlement for a purportedclass-action suit, entitled "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, CapitalOne Services, Inc., and Intersections, Inc.," which was filedbefore the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania.

The suit was filed on Dec. 23, 2005. It alleges that the CreditInform credit monitoring service marketed by Capital One andprovided by the company violates certain procedural requirementsunder the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and thePennsylvania Credit Services Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the company and Capital One are"credit repair organizations" under the CROA and "creditservices organizations" under the PA CSA.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a class on behalf of allindividuals who purchased such services from defendants withinthe five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. Italso seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees andcosts.

By order dated June 12, 2006, the district court granted amotion by the company, staying the action and ordering theplaintiff to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis.

The order of the district court was appealed by the plaintiffbefore the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. OnDec. 17, 2007, the Third Circuit denied the plaintiff's appeal.

In January 2008, the plaintiff's motion for rehearing wasdenied, and on Feb. 6, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an orderand judgment upholding the ruling by the district court to staythe action and compel arbitration on an individual basis.

Pursuant to a settlement between the parties in the secondquarter of 2008, the company paid an immaterial amount to theplaintiff, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed by thecourt with prejudice, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-06729-JG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.

The class-action complaints alleged that the company and certainindividual defendants issued positive statements concerningincreasing sales of the company's World Wrestling EntertainmentInc. licensed products which were false and misleading becausethe WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a patternof commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was beingnegatively impacted by WWE's contentions, and there was anincreased risk that the WWE would either seek modification ornullification of the licensing agreements with the company.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the company misleadingly failedto disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtainedthrough an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits were described aspurchasers of the company's common stock from as early asOct. 26, 1999, to as late as Oct. 19, 2004.

The class action complaints sought compensatory and otherdamages in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants, andviolations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by theindividual defendants.

A request by the defendants to dismiss the case was fullybriefed and arguments occurred on Nov. 30, 2006. The motion wasgranted in January 2008 to the extent that the class actionclaims were dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs' rightto seek leave to file an amended complaint based on statementsthat the WWE licenses were obtained from the WWE as a result ofthe long-term relationship with WWE.

The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint. A briefingschedule has been established with respect to the defendants'motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion isscheduled for argument in October 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in itsAug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class ActionLitigation, Case No. 04-8807," filed in the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New York.

JUPITERIMAGES CORP: Fla. Court Grants Motions in FACTA Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Floridagranted a motion for summary judgment and a motion to staydiscovery that were filed in connection with the matter "Grabeinv. Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No. 1:2007-cv-22288."

On or about Aug. 31, 2007, Wayne Grabein brought a claim againstJupiterimages Corp. -- doing business as clipart.com -- foralleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amendedby the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

Mr. Grabein also seeks to recover for himself and the definedclass for alleged willful violations of FACTA: statutorydamages, punitive damages, cost and attorneys' fees, interest aspermitted by law, and a permanent injunction.

Jupiterimages has denied the allegations in the complaint andasserted numerous affirmative defenses.

The court has issued a scheduling order setting the case forjury trial in September 2008. No motion for class certificationhas been filed yet. The parties are currently engaged indiscovery.

Jupiterimages, on April 30, 2008, filed a motion for summaryjudgment and a motion to stay discovery. The court has ruled infavor of the motions, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Grabein v. Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No.1:2007cv22288," filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding.

LIBERTY NATIONAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Florida----------------------------------------------------------------Liberty National Life Insurance is facing a class-actioncomplaint before the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida over allegations that it discriminatesagainst black Haitian-Americans and limits their coveragedespite "aggressively" targeting them for sales and despitepaying millions of dollars to settle a previous class actionsuit accusing it of decades of racial discrimination, CourtHouseNews Service reports.

The report relates that this is a class action seeking redressfor an intentional scheme and common course of conduct involvingdiscrimination and unconscionable conduct by Libery relating tothe marketing, sale and administration of life insurancepolicies to members of the black Haitian-American community ofSouth Florida.

This case is brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.23(a) and (b)(1) and (2) on behalf of all black Haitian-Americans who have, or had at the time of the policy'stermination, an ownership interest in one or more life insurancepolicies issued by Liberty, and whose policies were issued andadministered under Liberty's discriminatory scheme and commoncourse of conduct described in the complaint and who werethereby harmed.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

(a) whether Liberty discriminated against class members by limiting the amounts of life insurance policies offered to similarly situated white customers;

(e) whether Liberty engaged in a statewide discriminatory course of conduct in targeting the sale of life insurance to an economically disadvantaged and unsophisticated segment of the population;

(f) whether Liberty routinely failed to disclose to plaintiff and class members material information about the ALX insurance policies;

(g) whether Liberty's conduct was undertaken with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of the class members to be free from discrimination; and

(h) whether Liberty's conduct in discriminating against black Haitian-Americans warrants an award of punitive damages, and the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded to deter Lieberty from similar conduct.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

-- an order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b);

-- an order finding that Liberty has engaged in discriminatory conduct in violation of 42 USC Section 1981 and Section 1982;

-- an order granting injunctive relief to prevent recurrence of Liberty's discriminatory conduct;

-- an award to plaintiff and the class of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

-- an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

-- an award to plaintiff and the class of the costs, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in bringing this action pursuant to 42 USC Section 1988; and

-- all further relief as may be just.

The suit is "Marlene Joseph et al. v. Liberty National LifeInsurance Company, Case 1:08-cv-22580-JAL," filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

MERCURY CASUALTY: Charges Extra for Medical Policy, Suit Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Mercury Casualty Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed inLos Angeles Superior Court alleging it charges extra for a "noexcess, no reimbursement" medical policy, by which it promisesnot to demand reimbursement or offset for injured customers whoreceive money from any third parties responsible for theaccident -- but then demands reimbursement anyway, CourtHouseNews Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report on additional details and any furtherdevelopment regarding the case.

On June 13, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Planof Merger with FBOP Corp. and California Madison Holdings.Under the terms of the Agreement, which was unanimously approvedby the company's board of directors, and upon the consummationof the transaction contemplated by the Agreement, stockholderswill receive $1.35 in cash for each share of the company'scommon stock.

On June 18, 2008, an alleged stockholder of PFF Bancorp filed apurported class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Courtagainst the company, its board of directors (which includes oneof the company's officers), and FBOP.

Among other things, this action alleges that the individualdefendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations toour stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger. The suitprimarily seeks to enjoin the merger, as well as other ancillaryremedies.

While the company believes that the action has no merit, on oraround Aug. 8, 2008, the parties entered into a Memorandum ofUnderstanding to resolve the case on a class-wide basis.

The Memorandum of Understanding outlines a proposed settlementthat will be subject to court approval and is not expected todelay the merger.

PFF Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.pffbancorp.com-- is a diversified financial services company. It conducts itsbusiness principally through its wholly owned subsidiary, PFFBank & Trust. The company's business also includes GlencrestInvestment Advisors, Inc., a registered investment advisor.Glencrest provides wealth management and advisory services tohigh-net-worth individuals and businesses. In addition, thecompany's business includes Diversified Builder Services, Inc.,a provider of financing and consulting services to home buildersand land developers. In addition, it owns 100% of the commonstock of two unconsolidated special purpose business trusts PFFBancorp Capital Trust I, PFF Bancorp Capital Trust II and PFFBancorp Capital Trust III created for the purpose of issuingcapital securities. Its market areas include eastern LosAngeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and northern Orange counties.

PFIZER INC: Court Allows "Donaldson" to Proceed as Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinoisissued an order permitting the lawsuit -- "Donaldson et al. v.Pharmacia Pension Plan et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00003-JPG-PMF,"which names Pfizer Inc. as a defendant -- to proceed as a classaction.

In 2006, several current and former employees of Pharmacia Corp.filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Illinois against thePharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia& Upjohn Co. and Pfizer.

The plaintiffs claim that the Plan violates the age-discrimination provisions of the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 by providing certain credits to certaincurrent and former participants in the Plan only to age 55.

At the request of the parties, in May 2008, the court issued anorder permitting the case to proceed as a class action,according to Pfizer, Inc.'s Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 29, 2008.

The suit is "Donaldson et al. v. Pharmacia Pension Plan et al.,Case No. 3:06-cv-00003-JPG-PMF," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge J. PhilGilbert, presiding.

PHOTON DYNAMICS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Orbotech Merger Deal---------------------------------------------------------------Photon Dynamics, Inc., is facing a purported class-actionlawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia over a merger agreement with Orbotech Ltd.

On June 26, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Planof Merger and Reorganization with Orbotech and PDI AcquisitionInc. -- an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Orbotech.

On July 25, 2008, Capital Partners, a purported stockholder ofthe company, filed a complaint in California Superior Court,Santa Clara County, against the company, each of the company'sdirectors and Orbotech. The suit is captioned "Capital Partnersv. Dr. Malcolm J. Thompson, et al. (Case No. 1-08-CV-118315)."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company'sdirectors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with themerger, that the company's preliminary proxy statement relatingto the merger omits material information and that Orbotech hasaided and abetted the company's directors in their allegedbreaches of fiduciary duties.

The relief sought by the plaintiff includes a determination thatthe class-action status is proper, an injunction barring themerger (or if the merger is consummated, a rescission of themerger), corrective disclosures and the payment of compensatorydamages and other fees and costs.

On July 29, 2008, the complaint was formerly served on thecompany and the individual defendants. On Aug. 1, 2008, thecompany and the individual defendants removed the case to theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.Capital Partners also filed an application in CaliforniaSuperior Court, Santa Clara County, seeking expedited discovery,a temporary restraining order that would bar the merger pendingsuch discovery, and a hearing following such discovery on apreliminary injunction that would bar the merger pending a trialon the merits.

The parties have not yet responded to the foregoing filings, norhave they been acted upon by any court. However, the companyand the individual defendants previously had agreed to provideexpedited discovery, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Capital Partners v. Thompson et al., Case No. 5:08-cv-03688-RS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, Judge Richard Seeborg, presiding.

REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 7-----------------------------------------------------------Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminded investors of an Oct. 7,2008 deadline for them to move to be a lead plaintiff in asecurities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all personswho purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of ReddyIce Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: FRZ) between August 10, 2005, andMarch 6, 2008, including shares acquired through the Company's401(k) savings plan.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending with the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

RELIANCE STANDARD: Faces Miss. Suit Over Retained Asset Account---------------------------------------------------------------Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of DelphiFinancial Group, Inc., is facing a purported class-actionlawsuit in Mississippi, entitled "Moore v. Reliance StandardLife Insurance Company," according to Delphi Financial's Aug. 8,2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The complaint, filed on July 3, 2008, in the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Mississippi, challenges RSLIC'sability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through amechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retainedasset account and contains related claims of breach of contract,breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

The suit is "Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company,Case No. 2:08-cv-00161-WAP-SAA," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Mississippi, Judge W. AllenPepper, presiding.

SECURE COMPUTING: Court Sets Nov. 21 Hearing for "Rosenbaum"------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californiascheduled a Nov. 21, 2008 status conference for a lawsuitentitled "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.3:07-cv-00392-SC," which named Secure Computing Corp. andcertain of its directors and officers as defendants.

The lawsuit was filed against the company by Rosenbaum Capital,LLC, on Jan. 19, 2007. The alleged plaintiff class includespersons who acquired the company's stock between May 4, 2006,through July 11, 2006.

Rosenbaum Capital was appointed lead plaintiff in the action,and filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007. The amendedcomplaint alleges generally that the defendants made false andmisleading statements about our business condition and prospectsfor the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation ofSection 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007,the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The trialcourt denied that motion on March 4, 2008. The defendants thenfiled answers to the amended complaint on April 25, 2008, anddiscovery is proceeding.

The next status conference with the court is scheduled forNov. 21, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California, Judge Judge Samuel Conti,presiding.

ST. JOSEPH'S CARPENTER: Court Dismisses Camden Homeowners' Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The Class Action Reporter reported on Sept. 11, 2008, homeownersfrom the Baldwin's Run subsidized housing development in EastCamden marched from the City Hall to the federal courthouse onSept. 8 to file a class-action lawsuit against St. Joseph'sCarpenter Society, the non-profit agency that headed thedevelopment of their neighborhood.

In the lawsuit, the residents said that St. Joseph's "committedfraud by withholding vital information" about limits on theprofit they would make if they sold their homes.

The CAR report notes that, in exchange for state and othersubsidies, the Baldwin's Run homes came with deed restrictions.One requires that homes must be sold to other low- or moderate-income homeowners if they are sold within 10 years. Anotherrequires the owner to get only a portion of the profit when thehome is sold at fair market value. The rest will go to thestate Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency to build moreaffordable housing.

The homeowners said they did not know about the restrictionuntil they got a letter describing it from the state last fall-- years after they had bought their homes between 2002 and2004.

Angel Cordero, a community activist, handed the clerk a stack ofsworn statements from about 60 residents. Mr. Cordero said theresidents put together the lawsuit themselves because they couldnot afford a lawyer. He said they've asked the state toinvestigate.

In an update, Cherry Hill, of the Courier Post, writes that ajudge has dismissed the class-action lawsuit.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman said that thelawsuit was not presented in the proper format and did notclearly allege a violation of any federal law. He also saidthat the residents could not represent themselves in a class-action case. Judge Hillman said that the residents would haveto hire an attorney.

According to the report, the judge gives the residents 20 daysto amend their complaint.

Mr. Cordero, however, told Courier Post that he was not sure thehomeowners would amend the federal lawsuit because it could costseveral hundred dollars more to refile.

"These are poor people trying to get something done and he justdismissed it like that," Mr. Cordero said. "That was really,really harsh."

Mr. Cordero said the residents might try filing their lawsuit ina different court or pressing the Attorney General's office toinvestigate. Meanwhile, he said, he's asking communityorganizations such as the Latino Leadership Alliance to advocatefor them. Keith Benson, executive committee member of the NAACP(National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) inCamden, said he would bring up the issue at the October meeting.

City Council President Angel Fuentes and Councilman Frank Moranhave also proposed a resolution urging the state Legislature torevise the "95/5" rules so that homeowners can get a higherpercentage of profit from selling their homes, the report says.The resolution will be considered this week.

STARTEK INC: Wants Amended Complaint in Colo. Lawsuit Dismissed---------------------------------------------------------------StarTek, Inc., and certain of its current and former officersare seeking the dismissal of the amended complaint in aconsolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed againstthem in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Initially, the company and others were named as defendants intwo purported class action suits in the U.S. District Court forthe District of Colorado:

The federal court later consolidated those actions. Theconsolidated action is a purported class action suit brought onbehalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company'scommon stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company'sstockholders in June 2004, and in the open market betweenFeb. 26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants madefalse and misleading public statements about the company and itsbusiness and prospects in the prospectus for the secondaryoffering, as well as in filings with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission and in press releases issued during theclass period, and that the market price of the company's commonstock was artificially inflated as a result.

It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of theSecurities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalfof the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs oflitigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants askedthe court to dismiss the action in its entirety.

On March 28, 2008, the motion was denied with respect to theclaims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, except that the claim under Section 20(a)of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissedagainst two of the individual defendants.

On the same date, the motion was granted with respect to theclaims under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of1933 without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing an amendedcomplaint with respect to such claims.

On May 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. OnJune 5, 2008, the company and the individual defendants movedthe court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety,according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 30, 2008.

This action is brought, and may be properly be maintained, as aclass action pursuant to the provisions of California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 382 and Civil Code Section 1781(a), onbehalf of all persons since Sept. 10, 2004 who purchased avehicle from Saab of Sant Ana for personal use on a later daterescinded their original purchase contract and signed asubsequent or second contract for the purchase of the samevehicle, which contract was dated the date of the originalpurchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentagerate greater than 0.00%.

(b) the amount of revenues and profits SSA received, and the amount of monies or other obligations imposed on, or lost by, class members as a result of such wrongdoing;

(c) whether class members are threatened with irreparable harm and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, and, if so, what is the nature of such relief; and

(d) whether class members are entitled to rescission, payment of actual, incidental, consequential, exemplary, punitive, and statutory damages plus interest thereon, and, if so, what is the nature of such relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

-- an order certifying the class under the appropriate provisions of California law, and appointing the plaintiff and its counsel to represent the class;

TARRAGON CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in New York---------------------------------------------------------------Tarragon Corp. continues to face a consolidated securities fraudclass-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York.

Aside from the company, three of its officers -- William S.Friedman, chairman of the board of directors and chief executiveofficer; Robert P. Rothenberg, president and chief operatingofficer; and Erin D. Pickens, executive vice president and chieffinancial officer -- as well as Beachwold Partners, L.P. (aTexas limited partnership composed of William S. Friedman, asgeneral partner, and members of his family, as limitedpartners), and the company's independent registered publicaccounting firm, were also named as defendants in the matter.

TEPPCO PARTNERS: Unitholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Delaware---------------------------------------------------------------TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership), continues to face alawsuit filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of Chancery ofNew Castle County in the State of Delaware.

-- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and -- derivatively on its behalf.

The complaint named the company as a nominal defendant. It alsonamed as defendants:

-- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline;

-- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products;

-- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products, including EPCO Inc., a privately held company controlled by Dan L. Duncan;

-- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its affiliates; and

-- Dan L. Duncan.

The suit concerns proposals made to TEPPCO's unitholders in itsdefinitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on Sept. 11, 2006, and other transactionsinvolving the Parent Partnership or its affiliates (Class ActionReporter, May 26, 2008).

The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposedin the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the TexasEastern Products' maximum percentage interest in the company'sdistributions in exchange for limited partner units, are unfairto its unit holders and constitute a breach by the defendants offiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and that the ProxyStatement fails to provide its unit holders with all materialfacts necessary for them to make an informed decision whether tovote in favor of or against the proposals.

The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquiredcontrol of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, inbreach of their fiduciary duties to the company and its unitholders, have caused the company to enter into certaintransactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that are unfairto it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its affiliatesover the company.

These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah GasGathering Company joint venture entered into by the company andan Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale by the companyto an Enterprise affiliate of the Pioneer plant in March 2006and the impending divestiture of company's interest in MBStorage in connection with an investigation by the Federal TradeCommission.

As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit andConflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas EasternProducts recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by theBoard of Directors of Texas Eastern Products.

The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B.Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members ofthe Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors ofTexas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent becauseof their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and itsaffiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan.

The complaint seeks an order:

-- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and omissions in the Proxy Statement;

-- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders provided for in the Proxy Statement;

-- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect thereof, including the impending divestiture of our interest in MB Storage;

-- awarding damages for profits and special benefits allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and

-- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts.

The company reported no development regarding the case in itsAug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleumgases in the U.S.

The plaintiffs in this matter reside or formerly resided on landthat was once the site of a refinery owned by one of thecompany's co-defendants. The former refinery is located nearthe company's Bossier City facility.

The plaintiffs have claimed personal injuries and propertydamage arising from alleged contamination of the refineryproperty. They have pursued certification as a class and havesignificantly increased their demand to approximately $175.0million.

The company reported no development regarding the matter in itsAug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleumgases in the U.S.

U.S. GOVERNMENT: Sued for Wiretapping and Spying on Americans-------------------------------------------------------------The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 3, 2007, that theElectronic Frontier Foundation filed a purported class action ina California court against AT&T Corp., accusing thecompany of violating its customers' privacy rights by openingits records and systems to secret spying by the NationalSecurity Agency. The suit seeks to force the federal courtsystem to consider the legality of the Bush administration'swarrantless domestic phone taps.

According to a report by Ryan Singel of Wired News, the civilliberties group filed another lawsuit over wiretapping. Thisrecent suit now names the government and top officials involvedin the spying.

Wired News says that by suing the government directly, the EFFis attempting to undermine the government's plan to use a newpower handed to it by Congress in July 2008. The so-calledtelecom immunity provision nearly automatically forces a judgeto dismiss lawsuits against companies accused of helping thegovernment spy -- without court approval -- on the phone andInternet communications of Americans.

The report recounts that earlier this month, the government tolda federal court judge overseeing some 38 cases against thetelecoms that it would file those papers on AT&T's behalf.

The recently filed lawsuit against the government -- filed infederal district court in Northern California -- seeks a halt tothe program, an accounting of who was spied on and damages forthe five named plaintiffs.

Wired News notes that the suit also names high governmentofficials -– in their official and personal capacities --putting them at risk of fines they would be personally liablefor. Among those listed are former Attorney General JohnAshcroft, former Attorney General and White House CounselAlberto Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Cheney'schief-of-staff David Addington, along with current and formerheads of intelligence agencies involved in the spying.

"In addition to suing AT&T, we've now opened a second front inthe battle to stop the NSA's illegal surveillance of millions ofordinary Americans and hold personally responsible those whoauthorized or participated in the spying program," senior staffattorney Kevin Bankston, Esq., told Wired News.

The suit argues that the spying violated federal wiretap law,the First Amendment's guarantee of anonymous speech and theFourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

Others have previously challenged the government programdirectly, but no one has succeeded so far, the report says. TheEFF hopes the whistle-blower evidence it has used to keep theAT&T case alive will also work to prove it has a right to suethe feds as well.

Wired News adds that the EFF plans to contest the legality ofthe so-called telecom immunity powers, but wants to have anotheravenue to pursue its goal of having the program declaredillegal. Though the full extent of the secret spying is notknown, media reports indicate the government collected phonecalls and e-mails, with the help of American telecoms, where oneparty was inside the U.S. and one was outside the country.

Until recently, wiretapping law required court orders to collectthat information inside the U.S. The FISA Amendments Act of2008, which largely legalized the action, did not immunize thegovernment or government officials.

The recent suit against the government is captioned "Jewel v.NSA," while the earlier suit against AT&T suit is known as""Hepting v. AT&T."

UTSTARCOM: Court Allows Dismissal Bids in Calif. Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californiais allowing UTSTARCOM, Inc., and the individual defendants in alawsuit captioned "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation,Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," to file a motion to dismiss and amotion to strike the fourth amended complaint in the case.

Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-actioncomplaints alleging federal securities violations were filedagainst the company and various officers and directors. Theactions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc.Securities Litigation."

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amendedconsolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations ofthe U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was broughton behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased thecompany's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004.

On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amendedcomplaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of theclass period to Oct. 6, 2005. In addition to the companydefendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank. Theplaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in anunspecified amount.

On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants fileda motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21,2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed thesecond amended complaint. The court, however, granted theplaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which theplaintiffs did on May 25, 2007.

On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendantsfiled a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the thirdamended complaint. This was granted by the court, but withleave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffsalso did on May 14, 2008.

On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filedobjections to the form and content of the fourth amendedcomplaint.

On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but statedthat the company and the individual defendants would bepermitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike thefourth amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 11,2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, CaseNo. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

UTSTARCOM INC: Wants Amended Complaint in "Rudolph" Thrown Out--------------------------------------------------------------UTSTARCOM, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of the second amendedcomplaint in a class action lawsuit entitled "Peter Rudolph v.UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI," which was filedin the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia.

The purported shareholder class-action suit was filed onSept. 4, 2007, against the company and some of its current andformer directors and officers. It alleges violations of theU.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosedimproper accounting practices concerning the company'shistorical equity award grants.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purportedclass of purchasers of the company's common stock betweenJuly 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew aslead plaintiff. On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed anamended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion bythe company to dismiss the amended complaint.

The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a secondamended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the leadplaintiff did so. On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed amotion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amendedcomplaint, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter endedJune 30, 2008.

The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.

BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: KGS Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida----------------------------------------------------------------Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, commenced a securities class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stockof BankUnited Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: BKUNA) during theperiod between April 18, 2006, and June 18, 2008.

The complaint charges BankUnited and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,defendants made materially false and misleading statementsregarding the Company including that:

(a) the true risk associated with investing in the Company, given its undisclosed lack of underwriting standards;

(b) the Company's true exposure to losses related to its sale of billions of dollars of pay-option arms, which were sold to unqualified borrowers at rates that were allowed to be set at artificially low levels;

(c) BankUnited had adopted inadequate appraisal process and procedures, the purpose and effect of which was to qualify borrowers for over-valued mortgages; and

(d) other illegal and improper practices related to the purchase and sale of subprime and nonprime mortgages.

When the true impaired condition of the Company was ultimatelymade known to investors, shares of the Company collapsed andshareholders were damaged.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

FIRST TRUST: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Illinois--------------------------------------------------------------A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinoisagainst First Trust Portfolios, L.P., and certain of itsofficers and directors on behalf of purchasers of First TrustStrategic High Income Fund, First Trust Strategic High IncomeFund II and First Trust Strategic High Income Fund III betweenJuly 26, 2005, and July 7, 2008, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false andmisleading statements to the public in its press releases and inits Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, thelawsuit alleges the First Trust misrepresented and failed todisclose the actual level of risk associated with the Funds.

HARRIS STRATEX: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Del.---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significantexperience representing investors in prosecuting claims ofsecurities fraud, commenced a lawsuit seeking class actionstatus before the United States District Court for the Districtof Delaware on behalf of those who purchased the securities ofHarris Stratex Networks, Inc., between January 29, 2007, andJuly 30, 2008.

Also included are those who exchanged shares of StratexNetworks, Inc., for shares of Harris Stratex pursuant to theregistration statement or prospectus that became effective onJanuary 8, 2007.

The Complaint charges that Harris Stratex and certain of itsofficers and directors violated federal securities laws byissuing materially false and misleading statements about itsfinancial condition prior to and following its formation inearly 2007 through the date of the merger of Stratex Networks,Inc. and the Harris Microwave Communications Division.On July 30, 2008, Harris Stratex announced that it haddiscovered accounting errors which rendered its previouslyissued financial statements to be incorrect.

According to the announcement, the Company will restate earningsreports from 2005 through the present. The Company reportedthese accounting errors will cut previously reported pre-taxincome by $18 million to $25 million.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 14,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

The complaint asserts that Lord Abbett knowingly marketed classA shares as the best performing alternative, when class B and/orclass C shares, otherwise identical, would have been the bestinvestment choice.

The misleading disclosures actually omitted information from thefund prospectuses and allowed Lord Abbett to earn greaterprofits at the expense of plaintiff and class members. As aresult, investors suffered considerable damages.

NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files California Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significantexperience representing investors in prosecuting claims ofsecurities fraud, commenced a lawsuit seeking class actionstatus before the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California on behalf of those who purchased thecommon stock of NextWave Wireless Inc. betweenMarch 30, 2007,and August 7, 2008.

(i) NextWave did not have adequate sources of liquidity to continue operations as it executed its growth strategy;

(ii) defendants had no reasonable basis to make favorable statements that the Company's WiMAX semiconductor products would be available for commercial sale in the first half of 2008;

(iii) NextWave's growth and acquisition strategy was not financially successful and did not provide the basis for continued growth because it was straining NextWave's fragile liquidity position and NextWave did not have the financial resources to continue its world- wide operations through the end of 2008; and

(iv) NextWave failed to timely disclose that it had invested all of its marketable securities in extremely high-risk and illiquid auction rate securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

NORTHERN TRUST: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.--------------------------------------------------------------Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork against Northern Trust Securities, Inc., Northern TrustCorporation, and Northern Trust Company that alleges violationsof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasersof Northern Trust's auction rate securities during the periodbetween September 16, 2003, through February 13, 2008,inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, NorthernTrust materially misrepresented the liquidity of and risksassociated with auction rate securities and omitted materialfacts about the auction rate securities market, including:

1) misrepresenting that auction rate securities were like cash and were highly liquid, safe investments for short- term investing;

2) misrepresenting that the auction rate securities offered by Northern Trust were equivalent to cash or money market funds and were safe, highly liquid short-term investment vehicles and that cash could be received in a matter of days;

3) failing to disclose to purchasers of auction rate securities material facts about these securities; and

4) failing to disclose that these securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, and were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30-year maturity dates, or longer.

In fact, as alleged in the Complaint, even though a number ofauctions began to fail in the Summer of 2007 and thereafter,Northern Trust continued to encourage investors to purchaseauction rate securities and continued to represent to investorsthat these securities were like cash or money market accountsand were highly liquid, safe investments for short-terminvesting, without adequately disclosing the risks associatedwith the securities. As further alleged, on February 13, 2008,87% of all auctions of auction rate securities failed when allof the major broker-dealers, including UBS, Goldman Sachs,Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, among others,refused to continue to support the auctions. As a result of thewithdrawal of support by all of the major broker-dealers, themarket for auction rate securities collapsed, rendering morethan $300 billion of outstanding securities illiquid.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

QUEST ENERGY: Shuman Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Oklahoma----------------------------------------------------------------The Shuman Law Firm commenced a lawsuit seeking class actionstatus in the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofOklahoma on behalf of all those who purchased the common stockof Quest Energy Partners, L.P., between November 7, 2007, andAugust 25, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges Quest Energy and certain former andpresent officers, and controlling entities, including QuestResource Corporation, with violations of Sections 11 and 15 ofthe Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of Quest Energy's issuanceof a materially inaccurate Registration Statement in connectionwith Quest Energy's Initial Public Offering in that Quest Energyfailed to properly disclose related party transactions betweenits former CEO and an entity controlled by him.

On August 25, 2008, Quest Energy announced that its former CEOJerry Cash had resigned following an inquiry by the OklahomaDepartment of Securities in connection with questionabletransfers of, among other things, Quest Energy funds to anentity controlled by Mr. Cash. Quest Energy also announced thatit had constituted a special committee to conduct an internalinvestigation. As a result of these adverse disclosures, theprice of Quest Energy shares dropped significantly.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 5,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

REDDY ICE: Pomerantz Firm Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a classaction lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Michigan, against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., andcertain officers of the company for violations of Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the commonstock of the Company between August 10, 2005, and August 6,2008.

Reddy Ice is a Delaware corporation which maintains itsprincipal executive office in Dallas, Texas. The companymanufactures and distributes packaged ice. The Company is oneof very few packaged ice companies operating in the UnitedStates.

On March 6, 2008, the Company announced that federal officialshad executed a search warrant directed by the Antitrust Divisionof the United States Department of Justice in connection with aninvestigation into the packaged ice industry. On this news, theCompany's shares fell 33.45 percent. Subsequently Home City IceCompany, a competitor of Reddy Ice, pleaded guilty to conspiringwith other packaged ice firms to allocate customers andterritories in the market.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known bythe defendants but concealed from the investing public duringthe Class Period, were as follows:

(1) that the Company had engaged, and continued to engage, in illicit business practices with its competitors in the packaged ice industry;

(2) that the company had joined with its competitors in the packaged ice industry in colluding and agreeing to allocate territories and customers in the United States' packaged ice market;

(3) that the Company had agreed with competitors in the industry to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices for packaged ice in the United States market;

(4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly increased through the use of such illicit business practices;

(5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times;

(6) that such illicit business practices, when they were revealed, would initiate an investigation by the federal authorities into the Company's business practices;

(7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and

(8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

SIGNALIFE INC: Sarraf Gentile Files S.C. Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a class actionlawsuit on behalf of those who purchased the securities ofSignalife, Inc., between January 29, 2004, and April 11, 2008,inclusive.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof South Carolina. The complaint names as defendants Signalifeand several of its present and former officers.

According to the complaint, Signalife (formerly known as RecomManaged Systems, Inc. and before that, Mt. Olympus Enterprises,Inc.), violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that Signalife issued false statements aboutthe Company's ability to manufacture and market its Fidelity 100Monitor System, a supposedly wireless heart monitoring device.Despite years of highly positive statements about its heartmonitor, Signalife has had virtually no sales and the Companyhas never had a product that was commercially viable, accordingto the complaint.

As a result, the complaint alleges that Signalife's stock wasartificially inflated during the Class Period. Signalife'sstock dropped on April 11, 2008, on unprecedented volume of3,752,100 shares and the Company was recently delisted from theAMEX.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 28,2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent research,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.